A young sun - a response

There's the rub: the only possibilities I can imagine are that
1) the ICR boys are "lying for Jesus"
or
2) the ICR boys are utterly, completely, and pathologically blind to the realities of the world around them, and are willfully ignorant of anything that conflicts with a young earth stance.I can't imagine anyone who has done any research whatever on the sun being stupid enough to mangle and omit things like they have.

Gravity is that force, and that's why real, hydrogen-fusing stars (not wimpy little deuterium-fusing brown dwarfs) must have a certain minimum mass - around half the Sun's mass, IIRC. The gravitational attraction must balance the internal pressure, or the whole ball of stuff will rearrange until it does. (Brown dwarfs have their own mass limits, too - 13 times Jupiter's up to I forget what, maybe the minimum "real" star mass.)

Butting in where Eta would be the better answerer, but a very young star, even if not yet fusing hydrogen, sure sheds a lot of matter and emits a lot of hard ultraviolet radiation. Yes, it would function, but not in a real life-friendly fashion.And Buz, did the trees and grasses from Day 3 just "give the appearance" of photosynthesizing and growing before the sun came along to give them enough light to really do so? Haven't you said that the pre-sun "days" are possibly many of our years long?

Yeah, Eta - Sarfati's screed still has "one-third as many neutrinos" as one of its "points." His God of the Gaps is shrinking fast....

Creating meteorites recently that show precisely the chemical signature, based on four or five different isotopes, of being precisely 4,560,000,000 years old, and that are completely devoid of several other isotopes (like aluminum-26) but do contain their daughter isotopes - that's at least peculiar. Just as peculiar as telling us poor dumb humans that we were created from dust 6000 (or however many...) years ago and then planting fossil and genetic evidence that flatly contradicts that possibility.Maybe not lying or tricking, but just creating lots of misleading stage-dressing?And Buz, you never answered my question: If Day Three was perhaps thousands of years long, how did those trees, herbs, and grasses photosynthesize without sunlight? And even if it was one of our days long, why did they leave no fossils before the first land animals? For that matter, why did the grasses leave not a single fossil - no pollen, nothing - in any rock that has dinosaur fossils?

May curses be upon their houses.....I remember those suckahs from calculus and Diff. E., and that's been a long time now...

Don't forget the previous day, too - all those grasses and herbs predate the Genesis sun, ya know...And Eta, can we add isotopes like aluminum-26 to your list? We have its daughter isotope out in the solar nebula (as meteorites, today) but none of it at all!

Belief in god(s) has nothing to do with the evidence all pointing to a greater age for the sun and the milkshake than some book of stories allows for. I'm willing to entertain the idea that some supernatural being might have created the sun, but it sure wasn't done in the way that the book of Genesis says, unless the creator deliberately set out to mislead.
This thread probably does need to die, anyway. We've all beaten this to death already.

Watch it, Eta! We'll have to kick your sorry butt out of the Evil Atheist Evolutionary Conspiracy if you do that!

Buz......
What Eta is saying is that the protostar phase erases the indicators of its own age, not that the protostar phase doesn't exist! Why don't you look at a cornstalk that's growing its first ear and tell me what day Burpee put the seed in the envelope?